Allowed

State Bank of India v. Bal Singh

DRT24 Nov 2025OA/2113/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Presiding Officer of DRT-I, Chandigarh allowed an application filed by SBI for recovery of ₹24,02,352.52 with interest against two defendants, one borrower and one guarantor, who appeared ex parte. The court authorized recovery via sale of mortgaged land and personal assets.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of ₹24,02,352.52 with interest allowed; Recovery Certificate issued; Order to Recovery Officer to distribute sale proceeds of mortgaged property.

State Bank of India versus Bal Singh — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I, CHANDIGARH

¶2

BEFORE: A S NARANG, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

OA No: 2113 of 2022 Date of Institution: 18.10.2022 Date of Decision: 24.11.2025

¶4

SBI having its branches all over India and a branch at D.P. Road, Gagret, Tehsil Ghanari, District Una, Himachal Pradesh.

¶5

……..Applicant

¶6

Vs.

¶7

Bal Singh s/o Munshi Ram r/o Village Mawa Sindhian, Ward no.4, Tehsil Amb, District Una, Himachal Pradesh.

¶8

Kuldeep Chand s/o Des Raj r/o Kuthera Jaswalan, Ward no.5, Tehsil Amb, District Una, Himachal Pradesh.

¶9

……….Defendants

¶10

Advocates

¶11

Sh. Rahul Garg proxy counsel for Sh. Gurinderjit Singh, Counsel for the applicant bank.

¶12

Defendants - ex parte .

¶13

OA for the Recovery of Rs.24,02,352.52p with interest @10.25% per annum with half-yearly rests from 18.10.2022.

¶14

ORDER

¶15

SBI (Bank) has filed this application under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 (RDB Act) for the recovery of Rs.24,02,352.52p with interest against Sh. Bal Singh and another (defendants).

¶16

Bank’s case is that on 20.05.2014, it had granted a loan of Rs.10.00Lacs to defendant no.1 in the form of A.T.L. for agricultural purpose. To secure the loan, Defendant no.1 had mortgaged his land (fully detailed in para No.3A of the application). Defendant no.2 stood as the guarantor. The loan was chargeable to interest @10.25% per annum with half-yearly rests. The defendants had acknowledged the liability towards the debt on 15.03.2017 and 05.03.2020. On 03.10.2022, a sum of Rs.24,02,352.52p was due from the defendants. Despite repeated requests, defendants did not make the repayment. Hence, this application.

¶17

¶18

On 29.11.2022, summonses were sent to the defendants by registered post, which were duly served. However, defendants did not put in appearance. Vide order dated 26.03.2025, they were proceeded ex parte .

¶19

In order to prove its case, the Bank has placed on record the affidavit of Mr. Sachin Kumar, Branch Manager along with the loan and security documents and marked them as Exhibit A-1 to A-17. 5. I have perused the evidence on the record. I am of the considered view that the Bank has proved its case that it had advanced the loan of Rs.10.00Lacs and on 03.10.2022, a sum of Rs.24,02,352.52p was due. 6. Accordingly, the application of the bank for the recovery of Rs.24,02,352.52p (Rupees Twenty Four Lacs Two Thousand Thee Hundred and Fifty Two And Fifty Two Paise Only) with interest @10.25% per annum with half-yearly rests from 18.10.2022, till the date of payment is hereby allowed with costs. The liability of all the defendants would be joint and several. Bank can recover its dues by the sale of mortgaged land fully detailed in para No.3A of the application as well as from the personal movable and immovable property(ies) of the defendants. 7. Pending IAs, if any, stand disposed of. 8. Recovery Certificate be issued accordingly. 9. Parties are directed to appear before Recovery Officer on 30.12.2025, who is directed to distribute the sale proceeds of the mortgaged property(ies) and standing crops as per the provisions of Section 19(20-AB) of the Act . 10. A Copy of this order along with Recovery Certificate be sent to the Recovery Officer as well as the parties. Pronounced in the open Court. (A S Narang) Dated: 24.11.2025 Presiding Officer DRT-1, Chandigarh

State Bank of India v. Bal Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. Bal Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Manish Kumar versus Punjab National Bank

Hdfc Bank versus Dilbag Trading Co.

Jammu and Kashmir Bank Limited versus M/S Aijaz Ahmad Kuchay, (Erstwhile M/S Aijaz Brick Kiln)

Punjab National Bank versus M/S Deepak Electric Company

Hdfc Bank versus Jagjeevan Singh Bhullar

Indian Bank versus M/S Prince Enterprises